a) - Universitetet i oslo...Standard theories of science” Science as essentially different from other activities – epistemologically privileged ‐demarcation The purity of science,

a)

What is science studies? Simple answer: studies science How does science work? – does this amount to askingwhat science is?

Studies research in practice: interviews, particpantobservation

Often focuses on diversity, rather than unity.

”Standard theories of science”

Science as essentially different from other activities –epistemologically privileged ‐ demarcation

The purity of science, no influence from “external factors” (context of discovery)

Science as politically neutral, above politics. Descriptive, not normative.

KUHNParadigm belongs to groups, not individualsParadigms not directly caused by natureStudies the history of science, ratherthan the products of science

Kuhn as basis knowledge is a social phenomenon, not the property of individuals

science is being used uncritically scientific theories are upheld partly by social control Accepting a paradigm is not basically a rational choice Science is driven by (collective) psychology and valuesand ideology

Opens the door for the social sciences

Political background Increasing concern over the uses of science (weapon’sresearch, etc)

Increasing concern over unintended consequences ofscience (DDT, thalomide)

Concern over sciences’ political influence (nuclearpower)

Hence, started from a critical perspective. 

Standard theories revisited

Science as essentially different from other activities –epistemologically privileged 

The purity of science, no influence from “external factors” 

Science as politically neutral, above politics. Descriptive, not normative.

All of these traits serve to give science a special form of authority. Which matter for politics.

SCIENCE STUDIES New‐ish discipline  “Family” of more or less related theories and methodologies

Empirical study of scientific practice Philosophy, sociology, anthropology Science as a product

Bloor (1974) Science and Social Imagery Impartial with respect to truth or falsity, success or 

failure, rationality and irrationality.  Symmetrical. The same kinds of reasons should be 

used to explain both kinds of beliefs (postulate of equivalence)

Late 70’s: Laboratory studies Social scientists studying scientists as culture/tribe, and publishes reports from meetings with the tribes

(How do they talk?, how do they dress?, what do theyvalue?)

Laboraty studies Harry Collins  Karin Knorr‐Cetina Bruno Latour & Steve Woolgar Michael Lynch Andrew Pickering Sharon Traweek

Bruno Latour Originally trained as a philosopher 1977, w/Steve Woolgar: Laboratory Life. The (social) construction of a scientific fact. 

Ethnographic study of life inside Salk laboratories Latour’s theories are influenced by a French structuralist tradition

Laboratory life Naïve observer Witnessing the discovery of the hormone TRH – 500 tons of pig’s brain => 1 mikrogram TRH Is now synthetically produced, and can be bought

Laboratory Life ”inscription devices” ”translation” Black boxes The «specialness» ofscience consists in itsmaterial practices

Central conceptsAll elements are actors/actantsActors belong to networks, and their meaning is produced by their relations – co‐production

A more radical symmetryThe researchers should be symmetricalabout what actors are natural, and whatactors are social. Anything can be an actor – as long as it plays a role in the story

Existence precedes essenceThe characteristics or qualities ofactors’ are constantly developingThe characteristics are the outcome of«trials»Existance = resistance

What does this mean?

Give me a laboratory! Against criticsWhat is the point of doing laboratorystudies?Only looks at «micro level» ‐ can’t sayanything about the role of science in society?Only looks at what happens inside thelaboratory, should look at politicalforces, context. 

Claims that this is exactly thepoint:There is no «inside» or «outside» ofscience or laboratoriesThere is no difference between «micro» and «macro» levelsScience is there to dissolve suchdistinction

The story of Pasteur and theanthrax microbes Big disease – little scientist? Pasteur translates the interests of the farmers into his own

Using a laboratory, he can make the disease little and controllable

Then he changes the farms into small laboratories, and is able to control the big disease «out there»

The laboratory destabilizesrelationships of power In the lab, Pasteur may make the Antrax small, and himself big

He purifies the microorganism, and makes it visible He demonstrates his power over the disease by controlling its virulence in the lab

Science produced new phenomena, and learns how to control them

A process of translationAnthrax = microbes

A process of translationSalvation = vaccine

Turning the world into a lab  The vaccine can be spread because laboratoryconditions are spread to the farms (otherwise, thetrick won’t work)

Appears as a «miracle», but is really a repetition. «Scientific facts are like trains, they do not work offtheir trails.»

So what has happened? The distinction between the big and the small has disappeared

There is no distinction between the inside and theoutside of science

There is translation, displacement, transferrence.   The actors are different, and hold different powers, than they did before

Science is politics by other meansScience changes society – and makes it more «scientific». Therefore no pointin talking about science as a separate sphere of activitiesThe laboratory is a «technologicaldevice to gains strength by multiplyingmistakes» – and thus the scientists mayperform «miracles» 

What is science? The success of science was often explained by «specialmethods», «special minds», «special culture». 

Laboratory studies have shown that this is not the case Science has the technology to change scales – and thusmake mistakes without consequences – rehearsebefore taking results elsewhere (unlike politicians). 

Because society is getting more scientific, science cannowwork in more places. 

Social constructionCriteria (Hacking) 1) Contingency = science could have developed in 

other directions2) Nominalism = do words represent things? 3) Stability = internal or external sources?

Group discussions Discuss whether there has been anything that could be described as a scientific revolution in your field

Does the “Social Construction” undermine the rationality of science?